Black Space Versus Blue Space: A Proposed Dichotomy Of .
AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL - FEATUREBlack Space versus Blue SpaceA Proposed Dichotomy of Future Space OperationsCapt Carl A. Poole, USSFMaj Robert A. Bettinger, USAF, PhDDisclaimer: The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not beconstrued as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and TrainingCommand, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government. This article may be reproducedin whole or in part without permission. If it is reproduced, the Air and Space Power Journal requests a courtesy line.IntroductionAs defined by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year2020, the purpose of the United States Space Force (USSF) is to “provide forfreedom of operations in, from, and to the space domain for the United States”and shall include “both combat and combat- support functions to enable promptand sustained offensive and defensive space operations and joint operations in alldomains.”1 As part of the formal debut of the USSF after the signing of theNDAA into federal law, Chief of Space Operations Gen John Raymond statedthe formation of the USSF serves to “[elevate] space commensurate with its importance to our national security and the security of our allies and our partners.”2Traditionally, Air Force space operations were ostensibly limited to near- Earthspace with mission altitudes extending from low- Earth orbits (LEO) to geosynchronous (GEO) or highly- elliptical (HEO) orbits. During the 2010s, however,4 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021
Black Space versus Blue Spacespace operations began moving beyond this approximate altitude limit to encompass cislunar space with reinvigorated US initiatives to return to the Moon, plannedcommercial space projects, and cislunar injection trajectories for geosynchronous- orbiting satellites. Additionally, an increase in projects from both near- peer andemerging spacefaring nations, such as China’s Chang’e 4 lunar rover mission andaccompanying Lagrange- point communications relay satellite (2018–19), and Israel’s attempted lunar surface mission (2019),3 has pushed US space domain awareness and space control considerations beyond near- Earth space.The US and wider international space operations, moving beyond cislunarspace extending to the Moon, are poised to extend to Mars and potentially asteroids. Recently, then President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order encouraging the recovery and use of natural resources in space, thereby sanctioning thecommercial mining of asteroids and potentially other celestial bodies.4 Considered by some to still be the realm of science fiction, the conceptualizing of realisticspace operations beyond the Earth’s gravitational sphere of influence within thenext several decades has initiated around the world. Relevant to the US and thescope of this article, the (former) Air Force Space Command released a study in2019 outlining the findings of its “Space Futures Workshop.” This report, TheFuture of Space 2060 and Implications for U.S. Strategy, pushes the bounds of legacyspace operations paradigms and maps potential realities for emerging space- basedeconomies and alterations to the international order.5Influenced by this preliminary US Air Force (USAF) planning initiative, theauthors advocate a new way of classifying space operations within a dichotomousstructure that focuses on the location where space operations are intended andconducted with respect to the Earth or other celestial bodies (e.g., the Moon).Similar to the legacy classification paradigms of “brown- water” and “blue- water”navies in the maritime domain and the differences between local/regional andglobal air forces in the air domain, this article proposes the creation of a “black- space” and “blue- space” structure for space operations. This new distinction enables the functional division of current and emerging USSF missions as nationalspace operations begin to routinely transcend the Earth’s gravitational sphere ofinfluence and the formation of acquisition lines of effort to support expandingmissions aligned with an equally expanding scope of national security and strategy.The proposed structure differs from contemporary analyses that posit terms suchas blue- water space and brown- water space by instead creating a description ofoperations truly unique to the space domain.6This article will examine the proposed space operations structure by first outlining the historical foundations for differences in maritime and air domain military capabilities, specifically brown- water versus blue- water navies, and “local/AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021 5
Poole & Bettingerregional” versus “global” airpower. Next, the article will present the concept ofblack space and blue space in terms of an environment- specific definition, as wellas an examination of the technical capability requirements, mission types, andnational prestige and geopolitical considerations underpinning the proposed operation types. Finally, the article will explore how the USSF might support futurespace exploration within the black- space and blue- space operations structure.Historical Antecedent:Brown- Water Navy versus Blue- Water NavySpace has always had a strong tie to the oceans—from the vast emptiness to theever- present drifting of everything. This analogy makes the employment of navaland maritime references only natural as the venture into space begins to mirrorhumanity’s mastery of the sea. This article seeks to use the capabilities and areasof influence developed for brown- water and blue- water navies as a foundationaldichotomy for the space domain to further press upon the connection. The termbrown- water navy refers to a coastal, littoral, or inland waterway naval defenseforce used to protect local interests and national assets. Similarly, a blue- waternavy is an open- ocean or international naval defense force used for the protectionof commerce and national interests through the projection of national instruments of power. The operational techniques for each type of navy and their respective area or “sphere” of influence are dependent on both technology implementation and evolving national security needs.7Following the American Revolution, US naval attention was bifurcated intotwo modes. The first represented the maintenance of an emerging blue- water capability to protect US shipping and trade routes. For example, this capability waspivotal in defeating the Barbary pirates in the Tripolitanian War (or the FirstBarbary War; 1801–05) and sustaining a sea line of communication between theeastern seaboard and California before the transcontinental railroad.8 The secondmode, brown- water in orientation, is exemplified by the creation of the “RevenueCutter service,” known today as the US Coast Guard (USCG),9 which wascharged with coastal defense and maritime law enforcement. Auxiliary, yet temporary brown- water capabilities, were also forged by the US Navy (USN) to combat the British during the War of 1812 in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlainand later during the Civil War along the major inland rivers such as the Mississippi.10 The end of the 1898 Spanish- American War solidified the need to createa viable US blue- water navy with the acquisition of former Spanish territoriesacross the Pacific Ocean and in the Caribbean Sea.11 Nineteenth- century navalprogress enabled the US to secure “command of the sea” and control its commer6 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021
Black Space versus Blue Spacecial and military “maritime communications” during the twentieth and earlytwenty- first centuries.12Whether it was the Portuguese and the Spanish during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the English and French during the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies, or the English and Americans in the nineteenth century, the evolutionin technology became a central component to the transformation of brown- waterinto blue- water naval capabilities. New ship designs, the introduction of a nauticalchronometer for the measurement of longitude,13 and the eventual transition fromwind to steam and then to diesel power- produced potent naval forces that couldpredictably and reliably be used to project national power with both increasingspeed and precision. The new forms of maritime propulsion, coupled with the ability for near- instantaneous communications brought about by the invention of theradio, allowed for national spheres of influence to realistically grow beyond littoralcontrol, and the age of global naval power became technologically practical.Enamored by the prestige of wielding a blue- water navy, some nations neglected to sustain a brown- water capability and, therefore, limit their naval power.As previously described, the US has had a long history of balancing coastal protection needs with the importance of international maritime power projection.During the Vietnam War, however, the USN had no means to conduct missionsin littoral and inland waters against the North Vietnamese and insurgent VietCong. In its place, portions of the USCG were used until the USN could transition equipment and tactics for “riverine” missions.14 This need emerged again during recent operations in the Persian Gulf because the USN had overlooked theneed to maintain a brown- water capability.15 As with the Vietnam War, theUSCG again served a deployed function during Operation Iraqi Freedom andcomplemented USN operations by protecting Persian Gulf shipping, coastal petroleum refineries, and Gulf oil platforms.16 Despite its lack of a true brown- watercapability, the USN has come to use its “blue- water [aircraft] carrier[s]” as an effective tool in both “influence and power projection” to provide coverage betweenthe blue- water and brown- water arenas of maritime warfare.17Historical Antecedent:Local/Regional Versus Global AirpowerAs with the maritime domain, there is an observable distinction in the air domain concerning the evolution and pursuance of local, regional, and global airpower. In the present research, the term airpower is restricted to its classical air- centric definition and does not include the cyber and space domains as reflectedin current USAF doctrine.18 Foundationally, local and regional airpower is proAIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021 7
Poole & Bettingerjected by air capabilities technologically constrained in terms of spatial range dueto airframe design and fuel storage capacity. Local and regional air forces (orservices) will typically operate within a radius that is intracontinental in scopewithout the need for aerial refueling capabilities for range enhancement. By extension, these technological constraints are a byproduct of and influenced by agiven nation’s geopolitical position and security considerations vis- à- vis its regional neighbors and international interests.Historically, early aircraft were limited in range and operated within a radiusmeasured in tens to hundreds of miles of airfields. This range continued to growas operational requirements intensified during World War I. The British HandleyPage V/1500 (HP 15) delivered a maximum range of approximately 1,300 miles(2,092 km) to bomb targets deep within Germany from Great Britain or France.19Aeronautical advances were rapid in the early days of aviation, with the first UStranscontinental flight from New York to San Diego (approx. 2,700 mi, or 4,350km) in 1923 in a Fokker T-2 and the first trans- Atlantic flight (approx. 3,600 mi,or 5,790 km) in 1927.20 These advances, however, were only associated withsmaller- scale aircraft featuring limitations in both weight and crew to maximizeaerodynamic and engine efficiency. Commercial aviation and the record- breakingexploits during the Interwar period helped push the bounds of aeronautical engineering, with aircraft evolving in terms of maximum range, altitude, size, weightcapacity, and design. The onset of World War II brought a new set of requirements, with the exigencies of global war again extending large aircraft range withB-29 bombers flying over 1,500 mi (2,410 km) sorties against targets in mainlandJapan.21 Even with such demonstrated strategic reach, Allied and Axis air forcesremained fundamentally regional in reach, only approaching the prospect of“global reach” at the maximum extent of existing aircraft capabilities.Intercontinental, global airpower originated after the end of World War II withthe introduction of aerial refueling. Although tested and proven during the 1920s,aerial refueling became a defined and increasingly reliable capability within thenascent USAF with the debut of the KB-29M/P and KC-97, and later the KC135.22 This new capability reduced aircraft range and overall mission endurancedependencies of aircraft design and fuel storage capacity. As a supporting functionof Air Force operations during the Cold War and post- Cold War environments,aerial refueling provided global reach to not only the strategic attack function, asembodied by aircraft like the B-52 and B-2, but also airlift and mobility. As asalient example of global airpower, consider the combined use of the B-2 andaerial refueling platforms to conduct long- range strikes from Whiteman AFB,Missouri, to locations such as Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Libya(2011), with recovery back in the US.238 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021
Black Space versus Blue SpaceFor the US, the maintenance of a global airpower capability advances, in part,the National Defense Strategy objectives of deterrence and the sustainment ofglobal Joint Force military advantages.24 However, the realization of US globalairpower arose due to technological innovation, capability evolution, and the requirements associated with advancing and protecting US national interests in thepolar postwar order emerging after World War II. The establishment and sustainment of a global air force is not a requirement for all nations, and rather a capability ultimately influenced—similar to that of local/regional airpower—by the security considerations of a given nation. While nations such as the US and Russiamaintain global airpower capabilities, they also maintain aircraft intended tofunction on the local/regional level for air defense, intratheater combat support,or regional power projection needs.Competition has arisen with China’s desire to enter the global airpower andnaval arenas. Currently limited to regional operations in eastern Asia due toforward basing requirements and limited aerial refueling platforms, China seeksto develop longer- range bombers and tankers intended to deliver global reach forBeijing. The evolution of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force aerial refuelingcapabilities is regarded as a “necessity to project power throughout the globe” andensures parity with perceived Chinese geopolitical rivals.25 By contrast, othernations do not seek global power projection and only persist in sustaining local/regional air forces to satisfy a desired regional defensive posture. Every continentnow has air forces subject to limited local/regional access, such as Israel, Mexico,and Pakistan.Proposed Space Operations ArchitectureSince that fateful day in 1957 when Sputnik made its first orbit around theEarth, humanity has sought to further its operational presence in outer space.Terms describing orbital regimes, such as LEO, GEO, and HEO, have becomecommon in both the space professional and laymen communities. Also, the globalsociety is becoming increasingly linked to—and dependent on—space- based capabilities. As nations and commercial entities alike seek to transcend the limits ofEarth’s gravitational pull toward the Moon, asteroids, and beyond, a more universally accurate dichotomy is needed to classify and describe space operations. Asthe terms brown- water navy and local/regional airpower have developed to denoteoperations within “localized” terrestrial spheres of influence, the term blue space isproposed as a means to denote space operations within “celestial” gravitationalspheres of influence associated with a given planet, moon, or planetoid.26 Moreaccurately, blue space will feature two definitions: (1) space operations occurringbetween the boundary of the sensible atmosphere to the outer boundary of theAIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021 9
Poole & BettingerEarth’s gravitational sphere of influence; and (2) space operations from the surface/sensible atmospheric boundary to the edge of the gravitational sphere of influence for a celestial body (planet, moon, or planetoid).Following the terrestrial example further, the terms blue- water navy and globalairpower can be used as a basis to denote black- space operations occurring between local gravitational spheres of influence. As with blue space, the term blackspace will also feature multiple definitions: (1) space operations extending outsidethe Earth’s gravitational sphere of influence; and (2) space operations occurringbetween local gravitational spheres of influence where the primary gravitationalsource is a star, such as the Sun; and (3) space operations occurring at the interstitial boundaries formed between two or more gravitational spheres of influence.The use of the second and third definitions of black space will become more important as future space missions begin to occur regularly beyond the Earth’s gravitational sphere of influence.The bulk of space operations are of the blue- space variety, except for black- space scientific exploration missions in the form of interplanetary probes, such asVoyager I and II or the more- recent Juno satellite, or lander and/or rover sojournsto celestial locales like the Moon and Mars. Due to the dual requirements oftechnological innovation and cost, few nations have historically pursued, developed, and maintained an active space launch capability. As the first and onlyspacefaring nations at the dawn of the Space Age, the US and Soviet Unionconducted blue- space operations under the “big- sky” principle and governed bytreaties, such as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Anti- Ballistic Missiletreaty of 1972.27 These early operations focused on the development of communication, navigation, and Earth- observation missions, all of which have a militarysupport function. This focus meant that up until the creation of the USSF, thesemissions were considered an extension of the USAF’s operation and acquisitionprocesses and could be grouped under the blue- space umbrella.Engineering/Technology Considerations. As the number of spacefaring nations grew, so did the type of blue- space operations and missions beyond near- Earth space into the black- space realm. During the 1960s, the race to the Moonintroduced several new dimensions for space operations, each capable of beingbinned into the blue- space and black- space categories: (1) the reality of long- duration manned space flight to a different celestial body; (2) the need for a black- space rescue capability; and (3) the increased importance of material transportation to space. Unfortunately, since the Apollo missions, human spaceflight hasbeen limited to the International Space Station (ISS) and other space stationslocated in LEO and, therefore, limited to blue space.10 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021
Black Space versus Blue SpaceEntering into the 2020s, however, both national governments and commercialenterprises alike are seeking to end the nearly 50-year blue- space focus of humanspaceflight by returning to the Moon, visiting an asteroid, and venturing out toMars. As human spaceflight endeavors to extend its reach beyond LEO, evolvingpropulsion capabilities will play a deciding role in increasing long- duration spacemissions and extending from “blue” to “black space.” Propulsion accounts for themajority of mass during current space- lift operations, with payload mass ultimately limited by the necessities of carrying sufficient propellant to attain exo- atmospheric flight and inject a given payload into a desired orbit or trajectory.Advances in propulsion technology will need to deliver higher- power densities toachieve a greater payload capacity while delivering high levels of efficient propulsive power. Even with higher efficiencies and power, future propulsion systemswill still require some form of propellant management. In the same way thataerial refueling allowed for the shift from a local/regional to global airpower, orbital refueling will allow for the transition from blue to black- space operations.Once established, an orbital refueling capability will enable an expansion of space- lift capabilities to blue space and the required mission durations and speed forblack- space missions, thereby ushering in an increased level of mission assurance,responsiveness, and agility.Propulsion systems also have a role to play in spacecraft maneuverability. Asspacecraft maneuverability is advanced to the point of the vehicle becoming a“free flyer,” not tied to the limitations of Keplerian mechanics of motion, the ability to conduct black- space operations such as rescue and servicing will increase.28An extension of human spaceflight beyond the Earth’s gravitational sphere ofinfluence will necessitate the USSF to formulate doctrine and capabilities associated with the execution of rescue operations in both the blue and black- spaceenvironments. Each environment will require drastically different techniques dueto the timing component of any rescue effort. In the same manner that customaryinternational law recognizes the “affirmative obligation” of blue- water navies andgeneral ocean- going to “render assistance to persons in distress at sea,”29 Article Vof the 1967 Outer Space Treaty30 requires “all possible assistance” be given to astronauts in distress. In the event of a blue- space incident, such rescue missions canbe conducted from a terrestrial location on Earth (or other celestial body) or aspace station as long as a rescue launch is always on standby. These blue- spacecapabilities will resemble the current doctrine and operations conducted by theUSCG, which patrols and renders aid within US littoral waters. The planning forrescue changes for the case of a black- space event, wherein such operations wouldrequire at least a vehicle or station capable of rendering assistance and aid. Thetime it would take to stage a terrestrial- based rescue would likely impede andAIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021 11
Poole & Bettingernegate the effectiveness of such efforts, thus making the capability of a space- based rescue increasingly relevant. Using the USN’s blue- water doctrine as afoundation for this arena, the USSF would need to maintain a controlling presence in black space. The importance of something like the Lunar Gateway beinglocated on a gravitational interstice between the Earth and the Moon would befoundational in the area of rescue.31A final engineering consideration for future operations deals with the exponentially increasing factor of material cost and transportation inherent in an Earth- centric logistic system. A move to on- orbit refinement and fabrication facilitieswill need to be pursued to enhance development, dependability, and sustainment.This consideration will have two far- reaching effects. First, it will eliminate thelong and costly procurement times for materials and equipment associated withlaunch and transit from Earth. Second, it will limit the dependence on Earth ifmaterial transport becomes interrupted or too distant to be considered time effective. Similarly, orbital facilities will bolster “black space” operations; once outpostson the Moon and Mars have been established, the need will arise to create facilitiescapable of supporting local blue- space and surface operations. The new celestial- based facilities will also have the added effect of creating additional lines of logisticsthat can decrease material bottlenecks and further increase exploration capabilities.National prestige/geopolitical considerations. The advancement of technological innovation and the pursuance of scientific exploration are often tied to nationalprestige and the enhancement of a nation’s geopolitical standing. During the earlySpace Age, Cold War competition between the US and Soviet Union translatedinto a race of culture, economic ideology, and technology beyond near- Earthspace. As the first into space with both an artificial satellite and a manned spacecapsule, the Soviet Union sought to extend its early Space Age prestige victoriesby sending interplanetary probes to Venus concurrent with its lunar explorationprogram. From its first successful Venusian landing with VENERA-3 in 1966 tothe back- to- back landings with VENERA-5 and VENERA-6 in 1969, the Soviet Union sought to declare that it “clearly demonstrates the high perfection ofSoviet space science and technology, [and] the high talent of its scientists, engineers, constructors, and workers.”32 Even though losing to the Americans in therace to the Moon, the Soviet Union persisted in maintaining its presence in spaceand incrementally developing its space lift and space- based capabilities with theSoyuz program and Salyut series of space stations—all within LEO and the blue- space realm of operations.33Despite winning the race of the Moon, the US rapidly returned its focus toblue- space operations with the programs such as Skylab and the Space Shuttle,with only minor forays into black space with interplanetary probes to Mars and12 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021
Black Space versus Blue Spacethe Outer Planets. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both suggested the importance of having joint/cooperative governmental capabilities “toexplore the stars” while spreading the cost of such ventures.34 This early concept ofcooperation is the foundation that many spacefaring nations rely on at present.Amidst this environment of post- lunar space system development and exploration, the US became inextricably dependent on its space- based technologies forcommercial, governmental, and military needs. This reliance forms the basis for anincrease in US space control and defense considerations as embodied by the recent formation of the USSF. Although the US commercial space enterprise comprises the bulk of satellites in the American blue- space operations footprint, thecontinued use of and access to space by US stakeholders represent a matter ofnational security and interest. As the US pushes more into black- space operations, there will be attendant national security considerations that drive spacesystem capability development and acquisition. This need is echoed in the recentlyreleased Space Capstone publication: “As the range of civil, commercial, nationalintelligence, and multinational space applications expands in scope and extendsfarther from Earth, military space forces must prepare to extend Space Security insupport of these new US interests.”35After several decades of well- established cooperation between nations for spaceexploration and study, the early twenty- first century has witnessed a re- ignition ofcompetition in space. Comparatively, new entrants into the space domain, Chinaand India have set sights on missions to the Moon and Mars. Faced with China’sLEO space station, recent and planned cislunar missions, and a planned missionto Mars in the early 2020s, as well as India’s Chandrayaan-1 and Chandrayaan-2(attempted) missions to the Moon and Mangalyaan mission orbiting Mars, theUS has started to invigorate its own blue and black- space operations to expand itsspace presence vis- à- vis its geopolitical competitors.36Additionally, missions to and operations on the International Space Station(ISS), along with evolving efforts at expanding spacecraft maneuverability andautonomy, represent a burgeoning foundation in future near- Earth blue- spacearea of operation for the USSF and allied space programs. The recent launch ofthe crewed SpaceX Dragon capsule to the ISS on 30 May 2020 adds a new dimension to blue- space operations with the potential for privately owned commercial flights. Coupled with plans for commercial space tourism and miningoperations, the security of national interests in space will only increase, thus requiring a persistent US presence in both blue and black space. To this end, theLunar Gateway “will uphold the US position as a leader in spaceflight and allowthe United States to set “rules of [the] road” for activities in space.”37 The LunarGateway represents the natural foundation for the creation of black- space operaAIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021 13
Poole & Bettingertions doctrine going forward. It will also set the tone for future US/allied acquisitions and security capabilities needed in the transit to Mars or deeper space missions. Though this has been described as an important issue for the newly formedUSSF, even the newer spacefaring nations recognize that it “is conceivable thatdemands on logistics for this kind of [exploration] operation can only be met withmultinational cooperative effort.”38Scenario: Space 2060. In the future, the USSF will continue to service blue- space operations and more than likely support interplanetary exploration in thesame manner that the USN, USCG, and USAF currently support terrestrial exploration to remote areas such as Antarctica. Although the future remains unknown, a report such as The Future of Space 2060 and Implications for U.S. Strategyhelps to provide at least a notional mooring point for scientific conjecture ratherthan embarking on pure science fiction.39 In line with one of the “Positive Futures”contained in this report, the USSF by the year 2060 has effectively helped to establish a number of US/coalition- led outposts on both the lunar surface and Mars.Resupply spacecraft regularly travel between the successor to the Lunar Gatewayand Mars, with
4 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING 2021 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL - FEATURE Black Space versus Blue Space A Proposed Dichotomy of Future Space Operations Capt Carl a. poole, USSF Maj robert a. bettinger, USaF, phD Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should no
Blue Shield 65 Plus Choice Plan (HMO) X Blue Shield of California Blue Shield Inspire (HMO) X Blue Shield of California Blue Shield Medicare (PPO) Blue Shield Promise X Blue Shield of California AdvantageOptimum Plan (HMO) Blue Shield Promise X Blue Shield of California AdvantageOpt
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is an independent corporation operating under a license from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association permits us to use the Blue Cross and Blue Shield service marks in the state of Alabama.
Florida Blue is a trade name of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. Florida Blue HMO is a trade name of Health Options, Inc., an affiliate of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. These companies are Independent Licensees of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Florida Blue January 2021 Open Medication Guide IV
Florida Blue is a trade name of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. Florida Blue HMO is a trade name of Health Options, Inc., an affiliate of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. These companies are Independent Licensees of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Florida Blue November 2022 Care Choices Medication Guide (for HSA Plans)
4 blue brute /big blue /ultra blue installation guide the physical (or chemical) properties of jm eagle blue brute pvc c.i.o.d. distribution pipe (awwa c900) ,big blue pvc c.i.o.d. transmission pipe (awwa c905), ultra blue pvco c.i.o.d. distribution pipe (awwa c909), and ultra blue pvco i.p.s. distribution pipe (astm f1483) presented in this booklet,
pd8b3417.frm eng6 black black black 239-7q, black 239-6r, black eng8 239-8q, black eng11 239-10j , black 239-4bb, black 239-1jj , black black 239-15g, black
Standard Colors Leatherette* Cloth/cloth* Black P4 PL Gray PU PT Blue FE FC Burgundy AA A9 Tan 61 6R Brown N/A 6Q Black with red insert P5 PM Black with gray insert P6 PN Black with tan insert P7 PP Black with blue insert P8 PQ Gray with black insert PX n/a Gray with blue insert PV n/a Gray with red insert PW n/a Blue with gray insert FF FD
5 A Taxtbook of Botany Vol. 2 Pandey, SN & Trivedi, PS Vikas Publishing 25 6 Modern college botany set of 3 Vols M.P. Singh R. Mohanka C. Sharffuddin Campus Books International 25 7 A Text Book of Botany Set of 4 Vols by Annie Ragland , V Kumaresan), N Arumugam Saras Publication 25 8 A Text Book of Botany Set of 3 Vols Bhattacharya
